Semmencherry police station on waterbody: Madras HC seeks original master plan
The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Kumar Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan, granted a week's time for producing the original master plan when the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by Arappor Iyakkam in 2019 on the issue came up for hearing.
Stating that the original master plan had cited the land as waterbody but it was argued that the revenue records did not have entries to show it as a waterbody, the bench questioned Additional Advocate General J Ravindran, how can you disown the master plan. 'The master plan can be rectified only in the manner known to the law. Which law entitles them (CMDA) to reclassify the waterbody as institutional zone,' the bench questioned.
It further noted that the state and the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) are making contradictory submissions on the issue. 'Once master plan is made, everybody is bound by it as long as it is there. Otherwise, it will open floodgates,' the bench said.
The bench pointed out certain issues including whether it is in the jurisdiction of the CMDA to reclassify waterbody as institutional zone, and noted that the land was originally a pasture land and waterbody.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
₹98.25-crore Corporation contract irregularities during S.P. Velumani's tenure: Madras HC questions special court over delay in taking chargesheets on file
The Madras High Court has called for a report from a Special Court in Chennai with respect to the delay in taking on file the chargsheets filed with respect to alleged irregularities in the award of contracts by Greater Chennai and Coimbatore Municipal Corporations when S.P. Velumani of the AIADMK served as Municipal Administration Minister between 2014 and 2018. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh directed the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act cases to submit the report by August 22, 2025. He also directed S. Vimala, serving as the Superintendent of Police in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), to file an affidavit explaining the substantial delay in obtaining sanction to prosecute the public servants listed as accused in the case. The directions were issued on a second contempt of court petition filed by anti-corruption organisation Arappor Iyakkam, represented by its managing trustee Jayaram Venkatesan, against the Indian Police Service (IPS) officer. The present contempt plea had been filed for non-compliance of an order passed by the court on April 5, 2024, in the first contempt of court petition filed against her predecessor. Explaining the history of the case, the petitioner's counsel V. Suresh and D. Nagasaila said, his client had lodged a complaint with the DVAC way back in 2018 regarding illegal award of corporation contracts to those who shared close ties with the then Minister, thereby resulting in the unjust enrichment of public officials and diversion of the money earned into select companies and firms. When there was no response, Arappor Iyakkam filed a public interest litigation petition seeking a direction to register a First Information Report and constitute a special investigation team. The High Court on July 19, 2021, ordered that 'the State should spare no effort in getting to the bottom of the matter and proceed against those found to be responsible for the irregularities.' Subsequently, a FIR was registered against Mr. Velmunani and 16 others on August 9, 2021. However, another Division Bench of the High Court on November 30, 2022, quashed the FIR with respect to Mr. Velumani alone, for want of prima facie materials, but granted liberty to the DVAC to include his name too in the chargesheet if it was able to gather any fresh materials during the course of investigation. In 2023, six private firms approached the High Court to quash the FIR with respect to them too. On August 2, 2023, Justice Venkatesh refused to quash the FIR and asked the companies to wait and see whether their names figure in the final report (chargesheet). He also directed the DVAC to complete the investigation and file the final report within six weeks after obtaining sanction to prosecute the public servants. It was complaining about disobedience of this order, Arappor Iyakkam had filed its first contempt plea in 2024 against the then DVAC SP A. Myilvaganan. Justice Venkatesh closed the plea on April 5, 2024, after recording the submission of DVAC that it had filed two chargesheets before the special court on March 1, 2024. Then, he directed the special court to act upon those chargesheets within two weeks. Alleging disobedience of this order, the complainant had filed the present contempt plea against incumbent SP Ms. Vimala who told Justice Venkatesh that the chargesheets were returned by the special court on multiple occassions for rectification of defects. She said, almost all the defects pointed out by the court were rectified and the chargesheets were finally resubmitted before the court on July 12, 2025. Ms. Vimala said, the case was related to a loss of ₹98.25 crore caused to the Greater Chennai and Coimbatore Municipal Corporations. Hence, the DVAC had filed the first chargesheet against 58 accused persons along with over one lakh pages of tender related documents. The second chargesheet was filed against 40 accused persons along with over 50,000 pages of tender related documents. The special court returned the chargesheets on August 16, 2024 with an observation that several documents were not filled in OCR format, had dull impressions and were in a torn condition. The DVAC rectified the defects and resubmitted the chargesheets on November 11, 2024. However, the special court returned them again on February 14, 2025 for submission of additional supporting materials. The special court insisted on submitting the Government Orders related to the appointing authority of the public servants who had been listed as the accused, the age proof of the accused, their photographs, e-mail IDs, contact numbers, and so on. The chargesheets were finally resubmitted on July 12, 2025, along with all documents, except the GO, as sought by the special court, Ms. Vimala said. Stating she had no deliberate intention to disobey court orders, the SP urged the court purge her from the contempt proceedings. However, Justice Venkatesh directed her to explain the long delay in obtaining sanction to prosecute the public servants and also called for a report from the special court for not having taken the chargesheets on file within two weeks as ordered by the High Court on April 5, 2024.
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- The Hindu
Madras High Court orders inspection of Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham campus run by Mata Amritanandamayi Math
The Madras High Court has directed the Forest Department officials to inspect the Mata Amritanandamayi Math-run Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, a deemed university campus at Ettimadai, located at the foothills of Bouluvampatty ranges of the Western Ghats in Coimbatore district, and find out whether it fully complies with the 17 conditions imposed before granting building permission. A special Division Bench of Justices N. Sathish Kumar and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy directed the jurisdictional District Forest Officer (DFO) to conduct the inspection along with amici curiae T. Mohan, Chevanan Mohan, Rahul Balaji, and M. Santhanaraman on a convenient date to all the parties concerned, and submit a detailed report before the court on or before September 12, 2025. The orders were passed after senior counsel R. Sankaranarayanan, representing the Math, told the court that the institution was fully in compliance of the 17 conditions imposed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) on January 18, 2024, for converting 12.622 hectares of agricultural dry lands for educational purposes, and that it was also open to any inspection. 'If there are any defects, we will cure it immediately,' the senior counsel said after the High Court in July this year suo motu impleaded the Math as one of the respondents to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition related to the protection of forests and elephant corridors. The Math was impleaded following a complaint that it had erected a two-kilometre-long electric fence, disturbing free movement of elephants. Filing an affidavit on behalf of the Math, its authorised signatory G. Gopakumar, 54, residing on the Ettimadai campus, said: 'We have erected green solar smart fencing in the border areas of our patta (revenue document related to private land ownership) lands by complying with the technical specifications formulated by the Tamil Nadu Power Fences (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2023.' He pointed out that one of the 17 conditions imposed by the PCCF permits fencing around the lands in conformity with the 2023 Rules. He also asserted that the institution had provided a 150-metre vacant buffer zone between the lands belonging to the institution and the border of the forest areas in order to ensure free movement of all kinds of wild animals, including elephants. 'We have provided three troughs and supply water through pipelines for drinking by forest animals. We ensure the availability of water at all times. We also allow the existing natural stream running through our patta lands without any obstruction or alteration of direction. We grow mainly forest trees which do not attract forest animals,' the affidavit filed by Mr. Gopakumar read. Stating that Mata Amritanandamayi, a spiritual leader fondly called Amma by her followers, firmly believes in showing compassion towards all living beings, the deponent of the affidavit said, she always promotes harmony in nature and insists on protecting plants and animals too. He also stated that the Math runs educational institutions because she believes that education would eradicate poverty.
New Indian Express
10 hours ago
- New Indian Express
'Follow due procedure for choosing new DGP': Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
MADURAI: The pre-appointment procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court and the Centre for choosing new Director General of Police/Head of Police Force (DGP/HoPF) should be scrupulously followed by the State to maintain transparency and independence in the appointment process, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court observed on Thursday. Since the Additional Advocate General (AAG) M Ajmal Khan, representing the State, informed that the process for appointing a new DGP for Tamil Nadu is ongoing, the court said it concurred with the view taken by a coordinate bench of the Principal Seat of the Madras High Court that a petition against the selection at this stage is premature. Holding that no further interference is required in the above appointment process at this juncture, the court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an advocate over the delay in initiating the above appointment process. A bench of justices SM Subramaniam and G Arul Murugan passed the order on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by K Yasar Arafath of Ramanathapuram, seeking to stop the government from extending the tenure of incumbent DGP Shankar Jiwal, who is set to retire on August 31, or appointing an acting DGP, without taking any steps for empanelling eligible IPS officers and forwarding their names to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for preparing a panel.
